Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Caviar Exporter's Suit Against U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Plus Immigratin and Criminal Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 19, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Bacon, 09-1793, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence of 34 months' imprisonment involved a prosecution of defendant for bank fraud.  In affirmin, the court held that the district court thoroughly addressed the section 3553(a) factors and the error in the guidelines calculation was harmless.  The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments in support of his claim that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable as they were wholly without merit.  The court also held that the district court's rejection of defendant's request for an acceptance of responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and that defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that the court's sentence was substantively unreasonable.


Sakarapanee v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 09-6197, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of a Thai citizen's petition contesting the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) denial of his application for naturalization on the ground that he had previously sought and received an early discharge from the United States Navy based on his status as an alien.  In affirming, the court held that the the plain language of INA section 329 defeats petitioner's proferred interpretation.

Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 09-6228, involved plaintiffs' suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and two of its employees in their official capacities, claiming that the agency failed to act on a timely basis on five permit applications for permission to export 4074.05 pounds of roe worth approximately $500,000.  In affirming the district court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion to alter the order dismissing their suit, the court held that a claimant who seeks to amend a complaint after losing the case must provide a compelling explanation to the district court for granting the motion, and here, the district court did not exceed its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs provided nothing of the sort.

Related Resources:


You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard